Ontology IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#
Latest Version IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/beta202304#
PROUD TO BE AWESOME: INTRO is on the CLARIAH list of Awesome Ontologies for Digital Humanities!
PROJECTS FEATURING INTRO: Projects already using or currently implementing INTRO:
(By the way: Does it have to be so complicated?)
+++++++++++++++++++++INTRO is an ontology for the field of literary studies for representing knowledge on intertextual relations.
INTRO is an ontology designed to represent knowledge on intertextuality in literary studies by modelling the discussion or identification of intertextuality and other features in texts, as conducted e.g. in a research paper. It can be, but is not necessarily based on such a pre-existing research outcome: While INTRO can provide an existing research paper with a second, RDF-based layer to duplicate the contents of the paper in a machine readable way, it can also be used to formulate research outcome directly in Linked Data.
The term ‘intertextuality' is to be understood in the broadest sense, including concrete intertextual relationships like citation, allusion, plagiarism etc. as well as intertextuality in a very general sense, like the relation between a text and a text corpus (e.g. a genre, an epoch, an oeuvre). It also includes the relation between e.g. a research paper and its research objects and secondary literature.
Intertextual relations can be represented as relations between texts on any ontological level: from the abstract notion of work to the text as a recognizable textual structure or the text as an identifiable publication (all these being imported FRBRoo-classes) to text passages or text corpora (‚architextual entities‘ like epochs, genres, oeuvres etc.).
Given the specific status of knowledge in literary studies, the ontology does not allow to formulate statements asserting that texts just ‚have‘ features. Instead, identifying text features is always modeled as an ‚actualization’ of an abstract notion in a reading of said text; knowledge about texts (as about cultural artifacts in general) is the outcome of an interpretative act, an ‚interpretament’, which identifies intertextual relationships and text features (which intertextual relationships can be based on).
Since there are many theoretical frameworks for literary studies, the ontology focusses on their common denominators: In the field of literary studies, this common denominator is the text as research object. The common denominator in the field of intertextuality studies is the text-text-relation. So the central concept on which the ontology is founded on is textualism. Thus the topic of discourse is - at first - reduced to texts, text features and text relations, cutting out everything else from authorship, to reception, events, intentions, motivation, culture, systems, institutions etc. Textualismus in its restrictions is the perfect meta modell for the integration of theoretical frameworks of all kinds, which can be implemented as e.g. 'types' of intertextual relationships (like 'influence', 'paratextuality', 'paradigmatic relation', etc.).
INTRO is capable of modeling knowledge in different degrees of granularity: It allows to give rough overviews of relations between texts or text corpora, but can also account for text features as identified in distinct text passages and their relations to features identified in other texts/text passages. In the case of modeling pre-existing research outcomes (e.g.: an existing research paper), it allows to give abstract-like overviews, accounting for its objects and sources, as well as representations of the content of such publications down to the level of a single paragraph.
Answer 1: YES. INTRO is built to represent (a fraction of) our day-to-day work, which sooner or later consists in intellectual operations we have grown accustomed to - up to a point where we are unaware of the large number of different acts we perform each time. Modelling them with an ontology inevitably calls to mind all these steps implicit in our work, and only by doing so an ontology can represent our research outcome adequately. So yes, some complexity is unavoidable.
Answer 2: NO. INTRO is an ontology like all the others: As long as you don't violate class and property definitions, take what you need - and leave the rest. Take one INT3 Intertextual Relationship, link it with r24 has related entity to some text (modeled with FRBRoo, bibframe, dublin core ...), and you're good to go. Maybe add one INT11 Type of Intertextual Relationship via r19 has type.
The ontology is a work in progress. Pending work includes:
- further alignment with relevant models (e.g., the Web Annotation Data Model)
- testing, refining and expanding the ontology in the course of one or more case studies
(Feedback is welcome: Bernhard.Oberreither@oeaw.ac.at)
*******************************************(extracted with lode)
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT1_TextPassage
The "INT1 TextPassage" is a means of modelling an identifiable part of an E73 Information Object or its subclasses – without that part being removed from its source Information Object. (In contrast, FRBRoo's 'Expression Fragment' is by definition a result of an accidental or deliberate isolation separating the fragment from its source text.)
Examples:
- The words 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here' from Canto III of Dante's Inferno.
- The first four lines of Rilke's poem "Archaischer Torso Apollos"
- The last item on a shopping list.
has super-classes
f2 expression
is in domain of
r10 is text passage of, r11 has fragment, r11 is fragment of
is in range of
r10 has text passage, r11 has fragment, r11 is fragment of
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT2_ActualizationOfFeature
The fact that a certain text shows - in its own specific way - a certain feature (which itself is an abstract concept and takes form in many texts), e.g. a motif, an atmosphere, a theme, a figure of speech. Examples:
- the specific actualization of the motif of patricide in Sophokles' 'Ödipus Rex'
- the specific actualization of the Faust-subject in Goethe's 'Faust'
- the specific actualization of the iambic pentameter in Rilke's 'Archaischer Torso Apollos".
has super-classes
e28 conceptual object
is in domain of
r17 actualizes feature, r18 actualization found on, r26 constitutes interpretament, r3 is constellated by, r4 defines
is in range of
r17 feature actualized in, r18 shows actualization, r2 consists in interpretation, r3 constellates, r4 is defined in
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT3_IntertextualRelationship
This class is meant for the abstract notion of an intertextual relationship as it is identified by a reader (and is not to the same as the rhetorical entity 'quotation'). Every INT3 Intertextual Relationship has at least 2 related entities, which are texts (on any ontological level) or INT2 Actualizations of Features. An INT3 Intertextual Relationship is possibly identified in an interpretative.
has super-classes
e28 conceptual object
is in domain of
r12 has referred to entity, r13 has referring entity, r19 has type, r22 reference is based on similarity, r24 has related entity
is in range of
r12 is referred to entity, r13 is referring entity, r19 is type of, r22 provides similarity for reference, r24 is related entity
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT4_ReceptionalEntity
This class comprises features that 'are in' or 'can be found in' or 'can be read out of' a text, apart from the wording itself. INT2 Actualizations of these features are the results of a mental process that is applied to a text and that made out distinct abstract concepts which are themselves seperate from the text and take a specific, yet identifiable form in the text. This class therefore has an extremely wide scope, its subclasses are open to additions and are to be populated from relevant reference works (e.g. the subclass 'Rhetorical Entity' could contain concepts based on Lausberg's 'Handbook of Literary Rhetoric', many lemmata from the 'Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms' could populate the subclass "Formal Entity" and so on). It is highly likely (and welcome) that the instances of subclasses or sub-subclasses of the class 'receptional Entity' are instances or sub-subclasses of more than one subclass (e.g. that a rhetorical entity is at the same time a semantic entity as in the case of an 'argument' or 'narrator').
has super-classes
e28 conceptual object
has sub-classes
INT8 Rhetorical Feature, INT9 Semantic Feature, INT10 Formal Feature
is in domain of
r17 feature actualized in, r22 provides similarity for reference
is in range of
r17 actualizes feature, r22 reference is based on similarity
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT6_ArchitextualEntity
An INT6 Architextual Entity consists in a number of texts which in some way give reason to see them as connected, related, sharing a common feature. Examples for INT6 Architextual Entities can be disourses (texts sharing a discoursive element, a topic etc.), genres (texts sharing genre conventions), a discipline (texts deriving from the same disciplinary background), an oeuvre (texts written by the same person), national literatures (texts whose authors share a nationality), etc.
has super-classes
e28 conceptual object
has sub-classes
INT Discipline, INT Discourse, INT Epoch, INT Genre (Trias), INT Genre (sub Trias), INT Geographically Defined Architext, INT Movement, INT Oeuvre, INT School, INT Temporally Defined Architext, INT Variety of Text
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT7_Interpretament
The abstract content of a interpretative act. An interpretament identifies references, actualizations of features or characteristics that assign texts to a transtextual entity. Interpretaments themselves can originate in texts and thus be actualizations of the semantic feature 'Interpretation'. Examples:
- the statement that Umberto Eco's 'The Name of the Rose' features a detective character.
- the statement that Umberto Eco's 'The Name of the Rose' contains references to Arthur Conan Doyle's 'Sherlock Holmes'.
- the statement that Umberto Exo's 'The Name of the Rose' is set in the 14th century.
- the conclusion that Umberto Eco's 'The Name of the Rose' belongs to the genre 'postmodern crime novel'.
has super-classes
e89 propositional object
is in domain of
r20 discusses, r21 identifies, r26 consists in interpretation, r9 has preceding interpretament, r9 has subsequent interpretament
is in range of
r20 is discussed in, r21 is identified by, r26 constitutes interpretament, r9 has preceding interpretament, r9 has subsequent interpretament
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT8_RhetoricalFeature
This class comprises every aspect of a text that can be described in terms of rhetorics - ranging from the occurrence of rhetorical tropes (figures of speech) to parts of a e.g. research paper like 'introduction' or 'quotation' (pragmatic entities) to aspects of the narrative act such as 'voice' or 'narrating time' (narratological entities).
has super-classes
INT4 Receptional Entity
has sub-classes
INT Figure of Speech, INT Narratological Entity, INT Pragmatic Feature
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT9_SemanticFeature
This class comprises every semantic aspect of a text: from the common notions of 'plot' or 'character' up to the specific classification of forms such as 'situational motif'. (Subclasses are still object to further refinement and addition; to indicate their provisional status they are not numbered.)
has super-classes
INT4 Receptional Entity
has sub-classes
INT Atmosphere, INT Character, INT Constellation, INT Definition, INT Description, INT Figurative Meaning, INT Interpretation, INT Mood, INT Motif, INT Opinion, INT Place, INT Plot, INT Subject, INT Subtext, INT Theme, INT Theory, INT Timespan, INT Topic, INT Topos
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT10_FormalFeature
This class comprises subclasses for every formal aspect of a text: Subclasses will provide the general terms (e.g. 'stanza'), instances are meant to be specific types (e.g. 'Sapphic stanza'). Subclasses are derived from existing ontologies (in this case: the DoCO Document Components Ontology). (Subclasses are still object to further refinement and addition; to indicate their provisional status they are not numbered.)
has super-classes
INT4 Receptional Entity
has sub-classes
INT Act (Drama), INT Scene (Drama), INT Tableau (Drama), abstract, abstract, bibliographic reference, bibliography, block, caption, container, discourse element, field, headed container, header, inline, pattern, reference, table
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT11_TypeOfIntertextualRelationship
This class comprises (as subclasses) the many classifications of intertextual relationships that can be found, for example, in research literature, but also in greek rhetoric, in genre theory and so on.
has super-classes
e55 type
has sub-classes
INT12 Common Concepts of Intertextuality, INT13 Intertextuality in Genre Theory, INT14 Intertextuality in Rhetoric, INT15 Intertextuality in Intertextuality Theories
is in domain of
r19 is type of
is in range of
r19 has type
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT12_CommonConceptsOfIntertextuality
This class comprises common concepts of intertextual relationships such as 'citation', 'plagiarism', 'allusion' and so on; no further definition is necessary.
has super-classes
INT11 Type of Intertextual Relationship
has sub-classes
INT Punned CiTO Properties
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT13_IntertextualityInGenreTheory
This class comprises intertextual relationships that can be found in genre theory.
has super-classes
INT11 Type of Intertextual Relationship
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT14_IntertextuailtyInRhetoric
This class comprises intertextual relationships that can be found in rhetoric.
has super-classes
INT11 Type of Intertextual Relationship
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT15_IntertextualityInIntTheories
This class comprises intertextual relationships that can be found in research literature dedicated to intertextuality theory.
has super-classes
INT11 Type of Intertextual Relationship
IRI: https://w3id.org/lso/intro/currentbeta#INT16_Segment
This class comprises expressions (e.g. texts represented as F22 Self-contained Expressions) or parts thereof as they are represented in F24 Publication Expressions. INT16 Segments can be located inside the F24 Publication Expression or their physical carriers by means of page numbers etc. and are thus identifiable (and citable). They are not identical to/subclasses of F24 Publication Expressions, since they only make a part of it (whereas the F24 definition means the "overall content" of a publication); they are not identical to F22 Self Contained Expressions, since they have distinct bibliographical metadata and are not necessarily 'complete' in any sense; they are not identical to F23 Expression Fragments, because they are not seperated from their original context. The INT16 Segment can be linked to a F22 Self-contained Expression or a INT1 Text passage through "R16 incorporates". It can be linked to a physical carrier (like FRBRoos "F4_Manifestation_Singleton") through "P128 is carried by".
has super-classes
e90 symbolic object
is in domain of
r16 incorporates, r25 is segment of
is in range of
r16 is incorporated in, r25 has segment
Modeling: An INT7 Interpretament R21 identifies an INT3 Intertextual Relationship which R13 has referring entity Text A and R12 has referred to entity Text B, both texts being - for instance - F24 Publication Expressions.
Text A refers to Text B by showing a certain text feature, e.g.: a fictional character that occurred in text B.
Modeling: An INT2 Actualization of Feature is r18 found on a text A - e.g. a F24 Publication Expression -, and r17 actualizes an INT9 Semantic Feature (e.g. ‚villain‘, ‚Faust‘, …).
Also, an INT2 Actualization of Feature is r18 found on another text, text B - e.g. a F24 Publication Expression -, and r17 actualizes the same INT9 Semantic Feature.
An INT7 Interpretament R21 identifies an INT3 Intertextual Relationship which R13 has referring entity INT2 Actualization of Feature (on text A) and R12 has referred to entity INT2 Actualization of Feature (on Text B).
A feature of a passage in text A can be explained with the help of some standard reference book (text B) - for instance: a rhetorical figure with the help of Lausberg's standard work on the topic.
Modeling (one option):
An INT7 Interpretament identifies an INT2 Actualization of Feature. This INT2 Actualization of Feature is r18 found on an INT1 Text Passage - which R10 is text passage of text A, an F24 Publication Expression -, and r17 actualizes an INT8 Rhetorical Feature (e.g. a ‚hyperbole‘).
Another INT2 Actualization of Feature is r18 found on an INT1 Text Passage - which R10 is text passage of text B (e.g. Lausberg's standard work), an F24 Publication Expression -, and r17 actualizes an INT9 Semantic Feature, a definition. This INT2 Actualization of Feature r4 defines the INT8 Rhetorical Feature ‚hyperbole‘ and r23 provides support for the INT7 Interpretament.